Religion claims that miracles have happened. Miracles are magical events such as
cancers just vanishing. They are propounded by religion as evidence for the
existence of God for only God can do them. A miracle is what is not naturally
possible. It is a supernatural occurrence. It is paranormal.

Need to Prove God First

The Roman Catholic Church says that miracles show that it is the only right
Church. And so do the Mormons, the Pentecostals and on it goes and there is only
confusion. But anyway they say that miracles are not just happenings, they take
place to show us something.

The Church says that miracles are not done by God just to show off - that would
be beneath him. They are done to deliver a message.

If they verify a message as true, then the message takes on the role of being
God's message. Say a philosopher comes on the true doctrine of God by accident.
If God appears and approves it, the doctrine then becomes God's message. A human
message becomes God's when God verifies it. God delivers the message through
verifying it.

A miracle such as an apparition that speaks delivers the message of God.

So it is not the miracle that is important. It is the message. The miracle only
exists to deliver the message. If you need to learn that your father is sick how
you get the message that he is sick is not important. What counts is the
message. If God makes blood come from a statue, what is important is the message
that he can do this and any other message it gives.

God shouldn't need miracles then if it is only the message that matters.
Religion says our reason and power to feel are gifts from God by which he
endeavours to bring us to the light of religious truth. Miracles then are
evidence AGAINST God. If he had given us the intelligence to work out the
message on our own in the first place miracles wouldn't be required. If he
thinks he needs them then he is either stupid or showing off or both. A stupid
being is not a God - he hasn't even the power to put on a better thinking cap.

God could make blood come from a statue to show you that Jesus suffered for you.
To be focused on the blood coming from the statue wouldn't be right and would be
missing the point. Yet that is what miracle fans run after. They go to shrines
where the Mother of God is supposedly appearing because it is the miracle they
are fans of. They could savour any alleged message of hers at home. Miracles
then are a bad way to get the message out.

The miracle exists not to verify the message but to draw attention to the
message. However, God drawing attention to the message is God saying the message
is true.

Suppose I have apparitions of the Sacred Heart of Jesus.

I will only attribute them to God if I believe in God in the first place. Others
would say they were tricks done by aliens and others would say they were caused
by a burst of rare psychic energy, that is, psychic powers. Even if I fail all
psychic tests it does not mean that once or twice in my life I may have had
these powers for a while. Hallucinations can happen to fulfil some need that I
may not even acknowledge and they can mimic reality and appear for no apparent
reason and stop for the same. Psychic hallucinations could do the same. Others
would say a mad God is doing the visions. Others would say that the spirits of
the dead are doing them or that some being is trying to communicate and does not
know that I am receiving the communication wrongly and seeing it as a vision of
Jesus. Perhaps I am filtering it and altering it subconsciously. There are
thousands of explanations. Though I cannot prove that humans have psychic powers
from miracles for I cannot prove that miracles are the products of human
supernatural power – for some spirits of the dead might be able to do them as a
result of winning the powers after death – it is enough that we might have these
abilities. There is no reason to believe in gods or higher beings so it is more
plausible to believe that the clue to the mystery of miracles lies in psychic
power.

We know we can prove that there is no proof for God and piles of proof against
him. If there is a God he would still prove his existence somehow.

Miracles refute theism

A miracle is:

1- 1 An event against the law of nature.
2- Or 2 an event that unknown natural laws perform.

This is simple, a miracle is either against nature or it is not.

The first denies that there is a God. If God sets up natural law and then
changes it then clearly God didn’t set the laws up properly in the first place.
If God cannot do things properly then he is not a God. He is not supreme. If God
planned to change the law of nature, then it follows from his perspective that
he has not changed his laws as he planned it that way all the time.

The second denies that there is any evidence for God when unknown laws could be
doing the miracles.

The two definitions are the only two possible ones. Because religious leaders
and theologians know that nobody rational believes in miracles, they always
claim they reject these definitions. They are embarrassed by them and set out to
cause confusion and to keep the wool over the eyes of the people. For example
they will say that a miracle is just an act of creation by God that cannot be
explained by nature. That is actually just 1 reworded. The view that God has set
up laws of nature and miracles are not against these laws at all but just
exceptions is another one of these reworded conjuring tricks. Exceptions only
prove the rule when there is no other way but to allow an exception. Otherwise
they just break the rule. The view implies that God made the laws of nature and
then is forced to change them. Again we are left with a bumbling God.

David Hume said that God would not make natural laws and then change them to do
a miracle if he is perfect. This is usually held to be just an assumption on the
grounds that it may not be perfect to let nature alone at times. It is mistaken
for an assumption. We have no free will where beliefs are concerned even if we
have free will. One thought leads to another whether we like it or not and shows
that our thinking is programmed. So if God does miracles he does them for
nothing for he can carry out his plan by discreetly altering our beliefs
instead.

Beliefs limit our options and can cause us to do good all the time even if we do
have free will. We don't so it is impossible that there could be a God.

Miracles then are arbitrary acts of God. Miracles are an affront to belief in a
God of holiness and perfection for he would not be perfect or competent if he
did them.

Some think that God can do miracles for nothing if he wants to. They say it is
rational to throw your ball into the pond simply because you want to.

God is not like us. It is rational for us to do arbitrary and pointless things
for we want to do them – so they are not arbitrary or pointless in a real sense
- but he does not need to behave this way. He is love so he uses his power to
serve the interests of love. God cannot perform arbitrary miracles. It is okay
for us to do so-called pointless things to amuse ourselves but God is perfect
and happy and so has no need to amuse himself. We may waste energy when we have
nothing better to do but he always has something to do. In fact we never waste
energy for we always do what we would like to do under the circumstances.

Hume argued that God doing random pointless miracles is foolish. It would be
insane of God to set up nature with its regular way of working and then to keep
playing with it. It would be like producing a perfect painting and then doing it
damage.

Some religious people would answer Hume that God did not need to make the world
and the people in it but he did. So they reason that he can do miracles without
need and randomly. But that contradicts the notion that God made us out of love.
An entity that does not love is not a God and so you can believe in it and still
be an atheist!

They deny the validity of the religious argument, "Why is there something rather
than nothing? The answer is God being understood as goodness." In other words,
good is a person and good has made all things and that is why there is something
rather than nothing. That is what the why means. It is about the purpose. To use
a creator as an explanation for why there is something is merely to talk about
where things came from as opposed to the purpose of why they exist.

The view that miracles are incredible and striking coincidences has its
problems. This view would say that God set it up so that the red sea would be
divided naturally when Moses predicted it. But if that is true, then there is no
reason for miracles to be rare and uncommon. But they are. And it is dangerous
to imply that they should be. It is wanting us to be unsure despite the evidence
of Johnny's guilt that he murdered his wife.

If miracles are meant to convert us to what religion calls the truth - or at
least the right interpretation of God, its teachings, then why do we just do and
think what will gratify us? We do not believe in religion unless we get pleasure
from it - even if it is just the pleasure of believing something because you are
afraid to deny it for God will get you if you do - so God should change our
feelings to get us to accept doctrines for we can’t help our feelings anyway if
he wants us to believe. Miracles deny that there is a God for they speak of
supernatural incompetence.

Miracles evidences or proofs of divine omnipotence?

God by definition must have and be infinite power. If a miracle shows there is a
power above nature to which nature is subject it does not prove that power is
all-powerful or omnipotent. For example, if a statue comes to life and talks for
five minutes, how you do you know that the power above nature that caused this
has energy left to do other alterations? How do you know the power is God? The
miracle would only show that there is enough power above nature to accomplish
the miracle not that the same power can do anything bigger or create a universe.
It cannot show there is a God. It in fact leaves us with no more reason to
believe in God than it would if it never happened. It is not even relevant to
the existence of God. A miracle is about power not love - but it is not about
godlike power. Believers in miracles deceive us with their stupidity. A God who
lets miracles happen is obviously hiding from us as much as one that doesn't let
them happen. Miracles are not evidence for God - not even if they claim to be.
Claiming to be makes them out to be purveyors of lies.

Miracles and divine love

Religion says that God is more extraordinary than any miracles he does. He is
bigger than what any miracle says about him. If a miracle reveals God even
darkly it is doing its best. Then in a sense it is more sacred than God. The
revealer is always more important than the revealed. It is unsurprising that
religion uses miracles in a sectarian way. The Hindu is happy with a statue god
seeming to drink milk and not happy with the alleged spinning of the sun at
Fatima by a God who opposes the worship of any other god.

If God is to be worshipped, he must be perfect love. Only perfect love can be
considered worthy of love - worship means declare and see the absolute worth of.
Worship and worth are related words. If God is love, he must sacrifice himself.
Love is sacrifice in the sense that you work for the wellbeing of another
without knowing with absolute certainty that you are doing the right thing.
Maybe the love will be wasted or you end up depriving yourself for another. You
love then in spite of the fact that it might not be best for you. That is a
fact, that is the truth. If you love in spite of the truth then love means you
do not fully respect yourself. You reduce your dignity for the sake of others.
If you love because of the truth then you clearly ask (not necessarily want) to
be abused and disrespected and you love so that these might happen. So love is
imperfect. Thus the notion of miracles giving us a God of perfect love is absurd
for such love is absurd. And God cannot sacrifice for he sees the future and
knows the response he will get. He must love in spite of the truth that it will
be disparaged by many and because of it. And God cannot deprive himself. If
miracles give us a perfect God then that perfect God cannot be the real God if
there is one. Miracles disprove God in the sense that they give us a God who
cannot exist. Prayer is disgraceful for it is worshipping a God who gets more
honour than he deserves. You demean yourself by worshipping him.

Natural law as communication

The Christian God is love and as communication is a mark
of love and a part of love then he shows himself in his creation. So the
sun will rise tomorrow? We see that as a law of nature - as something
mechanical. But what if we see it not as that but as a loving God going to
give us the gift of the run rising tomorrow? God communicates a promise to
us. The bread he gives you that you put in the larder is his promise to
feed you. What if you die before teatime? He promised to feed you
but only as long as you are alive so that is not a problem.

If natural law is divine communication then what do you
want miracles for?

The communication thing only works if God will not
interrupt nature. A miracle would be a broken promise. To try and
justify it would be like saying, "You promised to pay me the rent every week.
You didn't pay this week for you wanted to spend the money on your birthday
party. You did not break your promise for you have to have your party."

Conclusion

Miracles are evidence against God for they do a better job of leading us away
from sense than leading us to him. God gave us sense if he exists. To go away
from it is to go away from him. Miracles do not deserve the esteem and reverence
lavished on them. They do not intend our edification but our religious
destruction. They at best are irrelevant to the question of the existence of
God.